Home fires are a serious problem in the United States. The National Fire Protection Association reports that between the years 1999-2002, for example, there were 114,000 reported home fires associated with cooking alone. On average, these fires resulted in 290 deaths and 4,380 injuries annually. Of these fires, approximately two-thirds started with the kitchen range or stove.
Undoubtedly as a result of the severity of the problem of home fires, numerous safety shut-off systems, that attempt to address this problem, have been developed. For example, U.S. Pat. No. 6,130,412 (Sizemore) and U.S. Patent Application 2006/0170542 (Schoor), generally describe systems having a detector for detecting a signal indicative of fire, such as smoke; a switch that connects an appliance, such as an electric range, to an AC power supply; and a controller that opens the switch upon receiving a signal from the detector. These systems also exist in both wired and wireless embodiments. In a wired system the detector is coupled to the controller by a wire; in wireless systems, the coupling between the detector and the controller is usually by means of an RF signal.
Given the need for a solution to the problem of home fires, it is odd that few, if any, of the present systems have been commercially successful. A closer examination of these systems reveals several possible reasons for this. First, the current systems require a level of skill to install that may be beyond the skill level of a typical consumer. Schoor, for example, teaches a system, which, in its wired embodiment, comprises a controller contained within a custom housing that, can optionally be hidden within a wall. A prospective consumer who is interested in a do-it-yourself project may find the prospect of cutting away drywall and having to wire a system too daunting to attempt and consequently avoid purchasing the system. Furthermore, the need for the manufacturer to supply a custom housing for the controller increases manufacturing costs, which costs must be passed on to consumers. The end result is that consumers are presented with a safety shut-off system that is relatively difficult to install, expensive, and possibly do not satisfy building code requirements, all of which are detrimental to success in the marketplace.
Similar problems plague wireless embodiments of safety shut-off systems. Both Schoor and Sizemore, for example, teach wireless safety shut-off systems whose controller is contained within a custom housing interposed between a standard circuit box and the plug of an appliance. As with the wired embodiment discussed above, such a design presents two problems for consumers: first, the housing for the controller is customized, which translates into increased costs for the consumer; second, the housing for the controller is designed to be positioned flush against the outside of a wall, and consequently protrudes from the wall by the thickness of the housing. This prevents appliances connected to the safety shut-off system from sitting flush against the wall. Consequently, the appliances must sit such that there is a gap between the back of the appliances and the wall. As the floor space associated with this gap is not accessible by the consumer, such a result is not an efficient use of floor space. Such an appliance layout is also not particularly aesthetically pleasing, especially for smaller kitchens.
Consequently, there is a need for a controller for a safety shut-off system that is inexpensive to manufacture, easy to install, and that allows for the efficient and aesthetically pleasing use of floor space.